Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Always Bet on Text (2014)

graydon2.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 349 posts

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#291

Post by xmprt »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #289

And somewhere in that discussion, I hear a faint echo of "org-mode" being whispered : ) Jokes aside, I often notice, how I am more productive, when relying on plain text, than relying on "enterprise" wiki systems, which make it impossible to export to any useful further processable format (looking at you, Confluence). One of my favorite features is, that it is easy to put text under version control, so that diffs hav…

That's more of a dig at Confluence than it is in favor of text only systems. I've heard tons of good things about org-mode but Notion is also a pretty good wiki tool despite not being fully plain text.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#292

Post by mjcohen »

fouric wrote: post #290

The author seems to be arguing that "most general" = "best" - because text is the most general communication format, it's the best. This argument is pretty trivially false. By this logic, the best programming language is assembly, because it's the most general. Actually, writing opcodes directly might be more general, in case your assembler doesn't have translations for some undocumented opcodes. The best editor woul…

Assembly language is not the most general because and particular assembly code can be run on only a few particular architectures. It's the higher-level languages that are more general.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#293

Post by danShumway »

dkersten wrote: post #139
koonsolo wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah come on, this is not accurate at all. We have tons of tech now: audio, video, charting, etc. Circles are pretty easy in powerpoint or any such software. The tech is obviously here already. But still, why do people prefer sending chat texts instead of calling or video calling? Surely not because of tech.

> Why do people prefer sending chat texts instead of calling or video calling? This isn't universally true. I (unfortunately, for me, since I hate it personally) know plenty of people who prefer voice or video calls. I even have people who will reply with voice recordings to my text messages. Many people prefer voice or video. I prefer text because of two main reasons: 1. Its asynchronous. I can reply as needed while…

There's a lot of selectivity happening on this post. Nobody here has worked in an office where the management prefer video calls instead of Slack messaging? I've seen no shortage of people on HN argue that this kind of text-based communication is inferior to video calls or screen shares when solving tech problems.

It seems pretty obvious to me that text, video, audio, and images are good for different things, and that diversity is reflected in the ecosystem. There isn't a universal trend towards or away from text, not really. People are making fewer voice calls, but they're also consuming more content on Youtube instead of on blogs. They're also moving a lot of their social life onto platforms like TikTok and Instagram, which are primarily video/image.

I don't see a universal trend here in either direction. I think people are cherry-picking a couple of isolated trends or points and making really broad, generalized statements that aren't warranted.

The whole idea of picking a "best" medium here is silly anyway. It's childish, in the same way that people used to argue about whether books, movies, or games were the 'best' artistic medium. Different mediums are good for different things.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#295

Post by airstrike »

aftbit wrote: post #268

As usual, context matters. If you're trying to convey complex thoughts about abstract matters, then language is the way to do it. If you are trying to convey deep emotional states, then a photo or video is probably better. You cannot convert the 1st amendment into photos, and you cannot convert the Mona Lisa smile into words. Just try to use words to describe either of these photos and see how they fall short: https:…

Sure, and the author recognizes that. FTA: "Pictures may be worth a thousand words, when there's a picture to match what you're trying to say."

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#297

Post by djha-skin »

Obligatory reference to the Unix Koan "Master Foo Discourses on the Graphical User Interface", after reading this post:

> Master Foo said nothing, but pointed at the moon. A nearby dog began to bark at the master's hand.

> “I don't understand you!” said the programmer.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/gui-programmer....

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#298

Post by kangalioo »

yohannparis wrote: post #177
leephillips wrote: post #169

The author may have overstated his case, but I hope the designers of GUI applications are listening: most of the icons on your menu bars mean nothing to me, so your application is hard to use. Substitute words.

My biggest pet-peeve is the hamburger icon instead of the world 'Menu'. You are saving 10px... for what!?

> For what?!

I can think of several things: - more breath space in the UI - easier recognizability - less information overload (four character glyphs vs three plain lines) - consistency with other applications

And it's not like the hamburger menu symbol is particularly obscure.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#299

Post by BeetleB »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #286
BeetleB wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong disagree on photos. I find photos to be an excellent way to convey emotions that didn't exist. Also very common to have multiple people conclude very different things from a photo. Very misleading. I'll also add that well written prose has moved me (and many others) emotionally in more powerful ways than any photo ever has. Your Great Depression era photo conveys emotions only because of the context around it…

>Also very common to have multiple people conclude very different things from a photo. But that's true for text, too. The US just had a very major politicized event where two sides had two wildly different conclusions over what one man's words meant. And there's a grand legal tradition of taking one specific document and interpreting what its words mean and applying it to a plethora of situations. There's plenty of p…

The ideological message in 1984 is anything but clear when you compare it to what the message would look like had George Orwell merely written a nonfiction treatise, without resorting to any literary devices.

If you know nothing of Orwell or the historical importance of 1984 and you read the book, it certainly wouldn't be clear that Orwell was trying to make a point, let alone what that point is. Some people would guess it does, others would say "It's just a story." Orwell intentionally obfuscated his point in choosing the mode of delivery (fiction). Indeed, this intentional obfuscation/ambiguity by fiction writers is what keeps literature professors employed.

The difference is that you can read a work like 1984 and at least know it is fiction, and that the message, if any, is hidden. Whereas you cannot look at a photo and easily tell if it's documenting what you think it is, no matter how much the photographer tries. At best you can see the shapes, and to a much lesser extent, things like colors/contrast. What the photographer was trying to convey is much more open to interpretation than 1984 is.

Re: Always Bet on Text (2014)

#300

Post by d0mine »

axaxs wrote: post #288
d0mine wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare a book (a few megs) with a picture of the same size. What do you think can communicate more info? Do you have a single counter-example?

There are single pictures you couldn't describe with terabytes of text(to a human, that is). Imagine for example trying to describe the milky way and northern lights. Yeah you could convey their looks in words but nobody is going to end up with the correct visual no matter how hard you try. Now add in other things, like emotion on people's faces. Some things just aren't possible to describe in full.

you somehow managed to describe the pictures without showing them
Post reply on HN